Talk:Aleksa Šantić

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Untitled

Please, I've never heard in my life that Aleksa Santic was Bosnian Serb. He was from Herzegovina, therefore Herzegovina Serb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nokturno (talk • contribs) 17:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity and Nationality

Aleksa Santic has no relevant connection to Bosnia, as he was from Herzegovina. He was ethnically a Serb, while his nationality was Austro-Hungarian and later Yugoslavian. Ethnicity and nationality are two different things. It should say 'nationality - A-H/YU' and 'ethnicity - Serb'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.174.74 (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

The man was a Serb from Herzegovina . Get over it. 23 editor (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Official website?

Is the website really "official", seeing as he died almost a hundred years ago? And what makes www.aleksasantic.com more official than www.santic.org? A Google search for site:http://www.aleksasantic.com/ zvanični|zvanična|zvanično doesn't bring up any relevant results, i.e. the website doesn't even claim to be official. ~barakokula31 (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Bosnian Serb"

I just edited the article to correct this mistake, and I come to the talk page and see this has been brought up repeatedly before.--Jednokratno79 (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC) The reason I removed the Yugoslav category is that the subject of the article died five years before Yugoslavia came to exist (under that name), so it seemed a bit silly.--Jednokratno79 (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Yugoslav" was already the accepted demonym during his lifetime. There also already existed the Yugoslav krone, the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts, the Socialist Labour Party of Yugoslavia (Communists), the Yugoslavia national football team, the Organization of Yugoslav Nationalists, the Football Association of Yugoslavia, etc, so it's not at all silly to define Šantić as a Yugoslav poet. Surtsicna (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the word did not come into use ex nihilo in 1929. Some organisations were using that word, but it was not the name of any country until 1929 (i.e. after Šantić's death). All of the disparate organisations you list don't have anything to do with Šantić and I don't see what relevance they have. Some of the examples don't really make sense anyway - JAZU was based in Zagreb and founded much earlier, in 1866 (by a decision of the Croatian parliament). It doesn't have much bearing on Bosnia and Herzegovina and Šantić. The Yugoslav krone was a temporary currency for a very short transitonal period after the First World War - and the article you link to shows banknotes with "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" printed on them, not "Yugoslavia", nor "State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs" in which it was apparently issued.

Anyway, without getting bogged down in minutiae, Šantić did not spend a single day of his life in a country called Yugoslavia. The states he lived in were Austria-Hungary and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Another point, the word "Serbian" refers to Serbia, Serb people, Serbian language, Serbian culture. (The word Serbian in "English" covers both the meaning of српски and србијански, just as the word "Russian" in English covers both русский and российский i.e. you're making a distinction the English language does not). Also, you removed a source which I'm putting back.--Jednokratno79 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point, quite obviously, is that the word Yugoslav is not anachronistic to Šantić's time. Šantić did live in a country called Yugoslavia; the country was commonly known as such from its creation, as even Wiki articles clearly state. It was not the official name, but to say that Šantić never lived in a country called Yugoslavia is inaccurate. And no, the word Serbian does not cover everything from an amoeba to a space shuttle. Wikipedia does not define people by ethnicity unless it's somehow paramount to their notability, and here "Serbian" means pertaining to Serbia, which is how categorization works for all countries. To lump Aleksa Šantić, a Serb from Bosnia-Herzegovina who wrote in Serbo-Croatian, with Sinan Hasani, an Albanian from Serbia who wrote in Albanian, in the category Serbian writers is misleading.

Finally, the source I removed describes Aleksa Šantić as a "Bosnian Serb poet". If you insist on retaining this source, Šantić must be defined according to it. It should go without saying that you cannot change what the source says while keeping the source. Surtsicna (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting words into my mouth. No one's saying the word Yugoslavia wasn't used before 1929. However, it's totally nonsensical to say Šantić lived in Yugoslavia, when he did not. He died five years before the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was renamed to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Yes, some people called the state Yugoslavia, but that wasn't the legal / formal / official name of the state. It's simply a question of accuracy, I really don't see why such a banal fact has to be subject to controversy. People casually called Austria-Hungary "Austria", yet when we are being accurate we call it Austria-Hungary. Also, Bosnia and Herzegovina were formally part of the Ottoman Empire until 1908, and at the very least both formally and de facto before 1878.

You're right about the source saying "Bosnian Serb". This is however so obviously wrong that it's on the same level as requiring a source to prove that Sarajevo is Bosnia and not in Herzegovina. The sloppiness of such phrasing calls into question the credibility of the source. Looking into the author, it seems his area of expertise is Russian literature. He was not from Bosnia, but Herzegovina. So it doesn't make any sense to call him a Bosnian Serb. Herzegovinian, or Bosnian-Herzegovinian or from Bosnia and Herzegovina are all options that make some sense. Bosnian is the only option that doesn't make any sense whatsover. Calling people from Herzegovina Bosnians is inaccurate and lazy, despite the fact that many people do it. Nevertheless, I'll leave as it is because it's difficult to find a source for something so obvious.--Jednokratno79 (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But nobody here wants the article to say that Šantić lived in Yugoslavia. What I am saying is that it is perfectly accurate to say that he was a Yugoslav national because Yugoslav was the adjective corresponding to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. I even cited examples for such usage, which you do not appear to have understood.

I am also not arguing in favor of retaining the Bosnian Serb thing. You removed it and then I removed the source which backed it, but then you inexplicably restored the source. Do I really need to go into why that does not make sense? Surtsicna (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understood what you were saying - I just think it's not correct. I had hoped that the comparison to Austria-Hungary/Austria would make it clearer. As for the Bosnian Serb thing, I made a mistake with the source. Not sure what to do about it. The source is obviously wrong (casually sloppy, being generous), but it's the only source we have to hand. Bosnian Serb redirects to the right article anyway, so we can just leave it for now.--Jednokratno79 (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aleksa Šantić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131006005247/http://lukapraha.cz/index_en.php?page=izdavastvo_en&id=455 to http://lukapraha.cz/index_en.php?page=izdavastvo_en&id=455

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The current wording is the result of a consensus reached here, at Talk:Aleksa Šantić#"Bosnian Serb", and it conforms to the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. If this article should be an exception to that guideline, and if the previous consensus should be updated, please discuss that here. If there is an issue with the guideline itself, please address it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Edit-warring is unhelpful. Surtsicna (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other party has taken notice of this discussion. That said, does he or she have anything to add? Should the consensus previously reached here be changed? Should the guideline be changed? If so, why? Surtsicna (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion ended with statement (diff) Bosnian Serb redirects to the right article anyway, so we can just leave it for now. Not that I mind it, but are you sure that you are correct when proclaiming this as consensus for current wording Yugoslav poet?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imo the use of "Yugoslav" is particularly preposterous since a country by the name of Yugoslavia did not exist during his lifetime. 23 editor (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" was just one of many names Yugoslavia had throughout its history; see that article, at least the lead paragraph. The adjective "Yugoslav" was clearly in use during the time the Yugoslav state was called Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, examples being the Yugoslav krone, the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts, the Organization of Yugoslav Nationalists, etc. The people of the SHS state were called Yugoslavs. Similarly, even though there is no country called America, there undoubtedly are Americans. Surtsicna (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna my question above was to you. You justified your addition of "Yugoslav poet" with a consensus reached here, at Talk:Aleksa Šantić#"Bosnian Serb". Are you sure there was such consensus taking in consideration above quoted conclusion of other editor in that discussion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the discussion may have simply died down? It is possible, I suppose. I took the lack of opposition after a discussion as a tacit consent. And for what it's worth, it was not an addition but a restoration of the wording that had been in place since September. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna I am not suggesting anything. When you used a consensus reached here, at Talk:Aleksa Šantić#"Bosnian Serb" to justify yoyr edits I thought that it was your unintentional mistake, because there is not such consensus there at all. Are you sure there is lack of opposition to "Yugoslav poet" version taking in consideration that the other editor concluded Bosnian Serb redirects to the right article anyway, so we can just leave it for now. instead of supporting your "Yugoslav poet" version?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure, since it did not conclude with anything such as "I do not agree with describing Šantić as a Yugoslav poet". Surtsicna (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna Will you please be so kind to look again? After your comment in support of "Yugoslav" version (diff) the other party responded with I understood what you were saying - I just think it's not correct...Bosnian Serb redirects to the right article anyway, so we can just leave it for now. That looks like clear opposition to your "Yugoslav" version, don't you agree?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, on a second thought, it does seem like I misunderstood the final outcome there. Anyway, what's your take on this situation? Is it okay to describe Šantić as a Yugoslav poet, bearing in mind that he did live in Yugoslavia as we define it? Surtsicna (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna You did not only misunderstood the "consensus". You also misunderstood WP:MOSBIO to impose your "Yugoslav poet" position. It clearly says: The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable... if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.... He certainly did not became notable in last 5 years of his life, so my position in this situation is that I am against your "Yugoslav poet" position. Having in mind that substantial part of his notability is drawn from his engagement in Serbian national movement, per WP:MOSBIO the first sentence can refer to him as Serb. I suggest you to revert your addition of Yugoslav poet until you reach consensus for it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Šantić did not become notable in the last 5 years of his life, but neither was he notable "mainly for past events". A much greater part of Šantić's notability derives from the pan-Slavism reflected in his poems, his use of the Bosnian sevdalinka, and his inspiration by his native Herzegovina and its Ottoman urban culture. That said, no, I don't think Šantić's ethnicity is more relevant to his notability than Obama's ethnicity is to his, Jennifer Lopez's to hers, or Albert Einstein's to his, so Šantić should not be an exception to MOS:BIO's "ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead" rule. Surtsicna (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna Šantić is dead for almost a century and all events that meade him notable are past events. You edit warred to impose your "Yugoslav poet" position and got yourself blocked for it. Instead to respect wikipedia rules, the first edit after you block expired was to continue your pushing of the "Yugoslav poet" position (diff) based on false arguments (consensus reached here, at Talk:Aleksa Šantić#"Bosnian Serb" and guideline WP:Manual of Style (Biographies), (diff)). It is obvious that you (until now) failed to gain consensus for your "Yugoslav poet" position. Multiple editors directly rejected it, including the editor whose direct opposition you misinterpeted as support and consensus. That is why I suggested you to acknowledge the issue with your edits and revert yourself. Will you do it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit war to impose a new wording. I reverted attempts to change the wording that had been in place for months to something that was clearly against guidelines. I did not break any rule nor did I push anything by restoring the long-standing wording. Please take a look at WP:BRD. Anyway, do you feel that this article should be an exception to MOS:BIO? Surtsicna (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the "Serb" was there for years and no, mentioning ethnicity is not "clearly" against guidelines. PonavljamSe (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning ethnicity is definitely not against guidelines. Šantić's ethnicity is explicitly stated in the article, as it should be. Surtsicna (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You very clearly did break WP:3RR, the page had an entire page history of reverts in one morning. Emk9 (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to be looking into the past here - the first version [1] of the article - it says "Serb". Three years later... it's "Serb" again [2] and again [3]. Not to mention your lack of sources when it comes to being "Yugoslav". PonavljamSe (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is looking into the past? By the way, welcome (back?) to Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are, with "had been in place since September". Your post above mine. PonavljamSe (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since September. That indicates present. Not in September. That would indicate past. Your English is excellent, as is your knowledge of Wikipedia, so I am puzzled by your confusion. Surtsicna (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you want to indulge in sophistry let us cut this short - provide the sources for "Yugoslav" claim or leave "Serb" alone. PonavljamSe (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one using the specific phrase "Yugoslav poet". This one describes him as "poet, publicist and writer of Serb nationality from Bosnia and Herzegovina" and as "Yugoslavia's greatest poet". Of course, we can find numerous publications describing Šantić as a Serb poet, a a Bosnian poet, a Bosnian Serb poet, even a Herzegovinian poet or a Serbian poet. Have you not noticed that one of the sources you cited describes him as a Bosniak? But since he lived in Yugoslavia (then called Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), defining him as a Yugoslav poet seems perfectly reasonable. Please understand that nobody is disputing or diminishing Šantić's Serbness. The article states that he was a Serb. It is just not a standard English Wikipedia practice to define people by their ethnicity. For example, although Barrack Obama is an African American, we do not define him as an African American politician. Surtsicna (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. First source is a Croatian theologian, not a literature scholar who (from what I have read) uses term "Yugoslav" very freely and not exactly.

2. Your second source is a stretch at best when it comes to "Yugoslav" seeing how you typed "Yugoslavia" in the search bar. But I very much like that the page you quoted points out his Serbian nationality (like the lead of his page should) and that he wrote in Serbian language. As for being "Yugoslavia's greatest poet" I cannot see how can that be more important than all the "Serbs" mentioned before on that very same page.

3. I simply used the site that was already mentioned and that site also mentions he's a Serb, more than once. Hey, if you want remove that source I'll find another five that mention him as a Serb, it's that easy - because he's a Serb.

4. Šantić died 1924 - Yugoslavia gained it's name 1929. He was a citizen of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, not Yugoslavia. If you want to follow wiki standards use his nationality just like the Kingdom used nationalities in its name at that time. Naming him Yugoslav poet is very unreasonable.

5. "Please understand that nobody is disputing or diminishing Šantić's Serbness" - unless it's in the lead.

6. African-American is a race, not a ethnicity. "although Barrack Obama is an African American, we do not define him as an African American politician" - until the second sentence in the lead.

7. If we were to gain consensus as you like, I believe wiki standard is to follow what most of the sources say - and nearly all say he was a Serb. And that is why it should be in the lead.

You failed to provide credible sources. I believe that "consensus" now is "Serb poet". PonavljamSe (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to debate about the sources, why not start with the ones you cited? The first of the sources you put in the article describes Šantić as a "Bosnian Serb" and gives his nationality as "Bosniak"! Also hardly published by a literature scholar.
You have been directed to the article which explains that "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" was just one of the many names Yugoslavia had throughout its history. It has also been explained to you (along with examples and sources) that the adjective "Yugoslav" corresponded to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
Yes, unless it's in the lead sentence. If you have a problem with the Manual of Style, take it up there.
African American is an ethnicity. Read the first sentence of that article. Surtsicna (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a number of valid sources on my side, all you have is your opinion that you keep repeating. I have nothing more to add to this discussion because it is fruitless and going in circles. Arguments are on my side and I will make changes in this article according to multiple sources that have been provided. PonavljamSe (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not my opinion but a Wiki guideline. If you think ethnicities should be mentioned in the lead sentence, please take that up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. I would appreciate if you did not violate the guideline until this is settled. Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct to call people with nationality that they did not have or even in this case have not existed during their lifetime. There is a few things here that catches my attention:

citizenship - you can call a person by citizenship of state where he lived in this case here is Ottoman empire, Austria-Hungary and Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovens - all Aleksa Santic citizenship.
nationality - no matter what is a state name there is a nationality involved and in this case is Serbian.
census - people can declare in census as they feel not necessary as to whom nation they in realty based on ancestry they belong - Aleksa Santic never declared himself as Yugoslav in census and there is no historical data to support that.
geography adjective - it can better describe from where person is(born, lived or died) in this case Herzegovina is his geographical birth place and that should not be mixed with names of states and if it is same or similar as state name there should be explanation given to distinguish geography.

Yugoslavians as nation is something introduced in census legal during communist state of Yugoslavia and was most used by those children born in mixed marriages or by people who felt Yugoslavs but in reality not had any Yugoslav origin since there was no Yugoslavia nation and that option was most practiced by Serbs and then some Croats and others. Yugoslavs are nation formed by ideals of communism and first used in census in 1961. It was nation crated and heavily influenced by communist propaganda. It would be a same as to create nations of Martians or some Moonlikes or other imagined name - under propaganda or individual feeling everything is possible but that does not make it real nation since there is no root.

It is not ok to call anyone except those who declared on census as Yugoslavs. Loesorion (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

Šantić's ethnicity should not be in the first sentence per MOS:ETHNICITY. It is stated explicitly in the second sentence (and implicitly in the first one as well) which is the most reasonable compromise, arrived to after a long discussion. If there is a need to revisit this issue, please do it here rather than engage in an edit war. Surtsicna (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your dicussion with one or two other editors came to no real conlusion. Quoting it as "rule" is completely silly and a logical mistake. It is just a way to quickly close the topic, which is not in the spirit of democracy. This one is rather far from a closed question. In fact, it is an issue. Šantić was a Yugoslav citizen for 6 years, while he spent for about 50 years of his life in other states. How is that relevant enough or important enough? Not to mention that you deleted some 7-8 English-language link describing him as a Bosnian Serb t (a shorter version of Bosnian Herzegovinian Serb, because there is no widely accepted construstion in English for Herzegovnian Serbs or simply a Serbian poet, which may also mean that he is a part of the Serbian literature - which he is. There are no links or sources for Yugoslav poet. I did ask you for sources via appropriate template, which you deleted with no explanation. This is opposed to Wiki rules, as you should know. Yet again, I have not seen your activity on Miroslav Krleza or Tin Ujevic or many other articles not related to ethnic Serbs, which gives me reason enough to doubt your good faith. Mm.srb (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What democracy? Wikipedia is not a democracy. I wish I got a penny every time Balkan people suspected me of being anti-Serb, anti-Croat, anti-Bosniak, or anti-Albanian. You can all doubt my good faith til kingdom come for all I care. Miroslav Volf defines Šantić as a Yugoslav poet here, but I am not insisting on that specific wording. MOS:ETHNICITY advises against defining people by their ethnicity; "Herzegovinian poet", "Bosnian-Herzegovinian poet", and "poet from Bosnia-Herzegovina" would all be fine. Ethnicity is implied by the Serbian Cyrillic version of his name in the first sentence and is made explicit in the very second sentence. Does this not please everyone and fit the Manual of Style? Surtsicna (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Santic's ethnicity "is relevant to the subject's notability" per MOS:Ethnicity, so it should be present in the lead sentence. Significant part of Santic's notability is derived from the fact that his activities and his poetry was aimed to support Serbian nationalism. That is what text of the article also says, based on reliable sources. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Significant enough to be in the lead paragraph, yes, but not defining. If articles about the first African American US president or Martin Luther King Jr. are not exceptions to MOS:ETHNICITY, I don't think this one qualifies to be either. A fifth or less of the songs assembled here are inspired by Serb nationalism. If the article or the sources say that a majority of Šantić's poems were aimed to support a national movement, then the recent expansion of the article focused unduly on one aspect of Šantić's career. Surtsicna (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This exact attitude led me to (a bit harshly) call you a 16th century Jesuit. You are not a judge, jury and executioner, but you sure are acting in that way, of which you are most probably ignorant. I am well aware that Wiki is not a democracy but this does not mean that users can't discuss in the spirit of democracy and free speech. Nice "quote" by Volf, as I can see he is also described by his ethnicity, does that not bother you? So it's "Balkan people" VS you? My guess is that in this neat little scenario you see yourself as an enlightenment figure opposed to some primitives? There is quite a solid number of people using Wikipedia for something called a special war and I am generally inclined to doubt good faith with edits such as this one, because in many other disputed cases it only proved that, in fact, there was no good faith to start with. I need not add that this agenda driven editing is disgusting to me. If you had looked at the issue from multiple perspectives, instead of removing my hard work and threatning with 3RR (which did not happen), you would understand that Yugoslav is also a hybrid ethnicity (and not just a question of someone's citizenship), with some tens of thousands people declaring themselves Yugoslavs till this day and age. If an average reader of Wikipeda from Serbia or ex Yugoslavia was to read that Šantić is a Yugoslav poet they would most probably roll their eyes out or be surprised. Once again, six years of citizenship does not form a Yugoslav or gives us reason enough for it to be in the lead paragraph. A big part of his work is inspired or directly comes from numerous Serbian traditions and myths; counting percentage of it only seems childish. My suggestion is to make a neutral intro line - was a poet from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mm.srb (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Your suggestion is reasonable. I am still bothered by your lack of good faith, though after being accused of being a papist and a Serb nationalist by the same person, I cannot say such things surprise me. Anyway, try not to comment so much on other users. It's the tenant of WP:NPA. Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Mm.srb sock account of topic banned Sadko ? Or is it blocked Zoupan's sock ? @Surtsicna please help me with this one if you know the situation. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you like it or not

The country where he was born, lived, worked, and died is Bosnia and Herzegovina (under Ottomans, Austria, Yugoslavia), and he was Bosnian Serb or Serb of Bosnia and Herzegovina - and no doubt he himself was extremely proud of that fact. Literally, Aleksa belongs to both Serbian and Bosnian literature, but most of all to Yugoslav literature. So, do not sanitize the article by sweeping under the carpet these fact by using euphemisms and regional name unless context allows or requires it for better understandings. But, maybe the most important thing is that, also mentioned by User:Surticna, consensus is reached earlier here > Talk:Aleksa_Šantić#"Bosnian_Serb". ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]